On Fri, Apr 08, 2005 at 01:17:58AM +0200, Ladislav Michl wrote: > On Thu, Apr 07, 2005 at 02:18:39PM -0700, Greg KH wrote: > > Jean's point is that you should send an individual patch for each type > > of individual change. It's ok to say "patch 3 requires you to have > > applied patches 1 and 2" and so on. Please split this up better. > > Here it is... > > Use i2c_transfer to send message, so we get proper bus locking. Oops, you forgot to add a Signed-off-by: line for every patch, as per Documentation/SubmittingPatches. Care to redo them? thanks, greg k-h
